The two clowns both advanced the notion of an Imperial Presidency when the Israel question came up. Hillary would extend a NATO-like umbrella over the Middle East and strike back "massively" if the Motherland were attacked. Obama forwarded similar assurances, neither one bothering to mention the Constitutional requirement of a declaration of war. I suppose this is another core value the O'philes will slip under the rug and ignore.
I am all for changing the war powers of the presidency to give whomever inhabits the White House behaves in the proper checks and balances of power manner.
I assume the two talked in the context of the current war making paradigm when speaking hypothetically. But if either feel in the aftermath of Bush's abuses people should stand for the status quo concerning war making to stay the same, they would be foolish, to say the least.
We should not be fighting in Iraq, and the Presidential War Powers Act passed in the wake of the Vietnam misadventure of a war has not proved to be a wise thing to do. To say the least.
I support pulling much of the teeth of or repealing the War Powers Act. I do not support the sort of foreign entanglement that promotes ideology and imperialism as this Iraqi war does.
I also support making it easier to remove from office, charge and bring to trial people such as the scoff laws in this Administration and who were part of this current illegal and immoral war and share the blame in it.
I understand the POTUS has to have some leverage and prerogative to handle emergencies. But there is a complete end run being done on the Constitution in the name of that act, and it is important to make sure that can never, ever happen again.
I agree, and the current D controlled congress could do two things immediately; 1) stop funding the war, and 2) enact the WPA immediately, restricting the continuation of troop deployment despite any presidential veto. If they wont do this while Bush is in office, why would anyone think they'd do it should Obama become president?
If they wont do this while Bush is in office, why would anyone think they'd do it should Obama become president?
The Dems lack a 2/3 majority to overcome a Bush veto.
After Bush, they would need 60% majority in the Senate to force a bill to an up or down vote, so they might not be able to do it even then, assuming they tried.